CRISIS US Airline Lobbying Group Warns Of 'Catastrophic Disruptions' Upon 5G Rollout

[CaryC]

US Airline Lobbying Group Warns Of 'Catastrophic Disruptions' Upon 5G Rollout
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) cleared a large portion of the U.S. commercial plane fleet for ultra-low visibility landing at half of the U.S. airports affected by the upcoming rollout of 5G. However, a top airline lobbying group warned the 5G rollout could unleash severe economic consequences for commercial and cargo airlines.

An FAA statement, released Sunday, said Boeing 737, 747, 757, 767, MD-10/-11 and Airbus A310, A319, A320, A321, A330 and A350 models had been approved to perform low-visibility landings (this represents about 45% of America's commercial fleet). The agency also approved two radar altimeter models that will not be disrupted by the 5G band from cellular towers.

The remaining airports will be heavily impacted by 5G frequencies and could cause airlines to delay or cancel flights based on weather. The FAA has requested AT&T and Verizon, which plan to turn on their 5G towers on Dec. 19, to create buffer zones for six months around 50 airports where transmitters are nearby.

"Even with these new approvals, flights at some airports may still be affected. The FAA also continues to work with manufacturers to understand how radar altimeter data is used in other flight control systems. Passengers should check with their airlines if weather is forecast at a destination where 5G interference is possible," the FAA said.

The heart of the problem lies in the aircraft's radar altimeter uses frequencies close to C-band. 5G towers also use C-band radio spectrum frequencies that can disrupt altimeters, an important device that measures the aircraft's height above ground.

Airlines for America, a lobbying group, based in Washington, D.C. that represents major North American airlines, such as Delta Airlines, American Airlines, JetBlue, Southwest, United, UPS, FedEx, and Air Canada, voiced their concern Monday about the 5G rollout and how it could have a massive impact on aircraft operations and possibly lead to "economic calamity."

"Unless our major hubs are cleared to fly, the vast majority of the traveling and shipping public will essentially be grounded," the lobbying group said, noting that 1,100 flights and 100,000 passengers could experience delays or cancelations daily.

"The ripple effects across both passenger and cargo operations, our workforce and the broader economy are simply incalculable… To be blunt, the nation's commerce will grind to a halt."

The lobbying group warned that large swaths of the "operating fleet" are "indefinitely grounded" until the radar altimeter disruption is resolved.

In addition to possible travel chaos, grounding fleets of cargo planes could create a new supply chain issue: the lack of widebody aircraft for shipping goods.

There also appears to be no resolution by the FAA for helicopters. Last week, the Helicopter Association International revealed entire helicopters fleets might be grounded nationwide when 5G towers are switched on.

If the lobbying group is right, flight delays and cancellations could dramatically increase on top of what has been a daily occurrence due to labor shortages and weather. The new twist is how cargo fleets could be grounded and disrupt already stressed supply chains.

US Airline Lobbying Group Warns Of 'Catastrophic Disruptions' Upon 5G Rollout | ZeroHedge

 

[TammyinWI]

This is very disturbing. They are working full bore to kill as many as they can, and the economy, as well...I continue to pray against this, that it is stopped/delayed as long as possible, and that it is put back onto them in its entirety, everything they want to do to us.

 

[LoupGarou]

What they need to do is make the systems filter against the other systems. There is no way that the airplanes are actually using EVERYTHING between "4.2GHz and 44GHz" as the graphic shows. Everything that I have seen on Aircraft radar Altimeters shows 4.2 to 4.4GHz, so the graphic in the story forgot the second decimal point. Either way, that band is not near 5G cellular frequencies (midband 5G is selected bands in the 2.5GHz to 3.7GHz range, or high band at selected bands in the 25Ghz to 67GHz range). If aircraft radar altimeters are at 4.2-4.4GHz, and midband 5G is between 2.5-3.7GHz, the ONLY way that there would EVER be interference is if one or both of the different systems is WAY out of spec or has some insanely crappy filters on it. Most systems that DO have the ability to transmit near the aircraft frequencies already have the protections built in to monitor those parts of the band and work around them. DrayTek routers and WiFi system have that built in (as shown below). ALL of the "Whitespace" systems have that built in, and not only does that self monitor and self modify around the whitespace bands, in most cases it alerts a centralized server set about the changes which allow other devices to know about the new Whitespace users in that area, preventing future frequency clashes.

And if there is an actual issue of frequency clashes, they just need to update the systems on the planes so that they can do the same frequency self policing and filter out the bands that could be causing operational issues.

 

[mecoastie]

Heard something about this on the radio driving in this AM. Thank for the article on it.

 

[BornFree]

So there was a story last night that a couple of big big corps were delaying this rollout for two weeks. I am not really sure why the same problem does not exist two weeks from now.

 

[bw]

if there is an actual issue of frequency clashes, they just need to update the systems on the planes

Not my area of radio expertise, but "just need to update" with respect to planes is no small challenge. It's not going to happen in a year or so, for example.

 

[intothatgoodnight]

As an aside to this specific '5G' topic - what frequency bands are Elon Musk's Starlink '5G' high speed internet satellite service using?

Low-flying satellites are still up at the 190-200 mile range, IIRC - that is a long distance to transmit/receive to a ground-based customer's Starlink dish unit - particularly with Starlink customers reporting 200 mb/sec speeds and lower-latency responses.

For high-bandwidth capabilities, higher frequencies must be utilized/transmitted/received wirelessly - recall the '5G' topology that Verizon, et al, wish to employ - '5G' transceivers mounted on nearby telephone poles, spaced apart by a low-hundred of feet distance between each of these '5G' transceivers, in order to give a local neighborhood the higher frequency (read: shorter distance between '5G' nodes/routers) '5G' coverage necessary for blazing fast internet wireless speeds.

With Starlink '5G', we are talking about satellites that **somehow** magically are able to support a reasonably high-speed wireless internet connection - yet, simply cannot be using the higher '5G' frequencies in doing so, due to the distance between the satellite and the customer's ground-located dish.

Comment, Loup? What are the frequencies and tech at work, here, with Starlink?


intothegoodnight

 

[Macgyver]

Not my area of radio expertise, but "just need to update" with respect to planes is no small challenge. It's not going to happen in a year or so, for example.

Ding ding ding.
Takes years for the faa to approve anything.
That's probably why these devices are so sloppy. A design was approved probably 50 years ago and stuff is still being manufactured to the same specs because there was no reason to change the design. Of which would cost money and pain dealing with the faa.

 

[LoupGarou]

Not my area of radio expertise, but "just need to update" with respect to planes is no small challenge. It's not going to happen in a year or so, for example.

A filter would screw inline with the coax coming from the antenna to the receiver on the plane. $50 or less per plane and you can bandpass filter all the other junk out. You don't have to worry about filtering on the plane's transmit side since that part is not the issue. Quick fix and it doesn't have to have any redesign work on the plane other than add the filter.
_____

As far as Starlink, the downlink from the sat to ground is in the 11-12GHz range.

5G, just means 5th Generation, and that goes for a NUMBER of platforms, not just cellular phones.

 

[TammyinWI]

So there was a story last night that a couple of big big corps were delaying this rollout for two weeks. I am not really sure why the same problem does not exist two weeks from now.

I think that your point is valid.

The FAA's concern is valid, but also, more people are choosing to get the vaxx in the interim. This is going to suck big-time if they launch this, including mass sickness.

Airlines Fear 5G Will Upend Travel This Week

January 18, 2022



(Associated Press) The airline industry is raising the stakes in a showdown with AT&T and Verizon over plans to launch new 5G wireless service this week, warning that thousands of flights could be grounded or delayed if the rollout takes place near major airports.

CEOs of the nation’s largest airlines say that interference from the wireless service on a key instrument on planes is worse than they originally thought.

AT&T and Verizon plan to activate their new 5G wireless service Wednesday after two previous delays from the original plan for an early December rollout.

The new high-speed 5G service uses a segment of the radio spectrum that is close to that used by altimeters, which are devices that measure the height of aircraft above the ground.

Here is a rundown of the issue from The Associated Press.

WHOSE SIDE IS THE GOVERNMENT ON?

Both.

The Federal Communications Commission, which runs the auctions of radio spectrum, determined that C-Band could be used safely in the vicinity of air traffic. The FCC in 2020 set a buffer between the 5G band and the spectrum that planes use to resolve any safety concerns.

But Buttigieg and FAA Administrator Stephen Dickson, whose agency is responsible for aviation safety, saw a potential problem. On Friday, they asked AT&T and Verizon to hold off activating C-Band 5G near an undetermined number of “priority airports” while the FAA conducted further study.

HOW DID AT&T AND VERIZON RESPOND?

They dismissed the concerns. The wireless industry trade group CTIA notes that about 40 countries have deployed the C-Band strand of 5G without reports of harmful interference with aviation equipment.

But AT&T CEO John Stankey and Verizon CEO Hans Vestberg did offer to reduce the power of their 5G networks near airports, as France has done.

“The laws of physics are the same in the United States and France,” Stankey and Vestberg said in a letter Sunday to Buttigieg and Dickson. “If U.S. airlines are permitted to operate flights every day in France, then the same operating conditions should allow them to do so in the United States.”

Although they took steps to soothe the federal officials, the telecoms are still bickering with airlines, which have canceled more than 10,000 U.S. flights since Christmas Eve because of bad weather and labor shortages caused by COVID-19.

“While the airline industry faces many challenges, 5G is not one of them,” Vestberg said in a company memo Tuesday.

HOW MANY PLANES DOES THIS AFFECT?

Under the agreement, the FAA will conduct a survey to find out. The FAA will allow planes with accurate, reliable altimeters to operate around high-power 5G. But planes with older altimeters will not be allowed to make landings under low-visibility conditions.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IN THE NEXT TWO WEEKS?

The two-week postponement will give the FAA and the companies time to implement the agreement.

AT&T and Verizon will be allowed to launch C-Band service this month under already-granted FCC licenses. The airlines have until Friday to give the companies a list of up to 50 airports where they believe the power of C-Band service should be reduced through July 5.

Until July, the telecoms will talk to the FAA and airlines about potential long-term measures regarding 5G service near airports. However, under terms of the agreement with the FAA, AT&T and Verizon will have sole power to decide if any changes in service will be made.

“We felt that it was the right thing to do for the flying public, which includes our customers and all of us, to give the FAA a little time to work out its issues with the aviation community and therefore avoid further inconveniencing passengers with additional flight delays,” Vestberg said in his memo.

Nicholas Calio, president of the airline trade group, was more muted in his comments about the agreement, although he thanked federal officials for reaching the deal with AT&T and Verizon.

“Safety is and always will be the top priority of U.S. airlines. We will continue to work with all stakeholders to help ensure that new 5G service can coexist with aviation safely,” Calio said.

The FAA issued a brief statement about the two-week delay, saying it looks forward “to using the additional time and space to reduce flight disruptions associated with this 5G deployment.”

Airlines Fear 5G Will Upend Travel This Week - Headline Wealth

(Associated Press) The airline industry is raising the stakes in a showdown with AT&T and Verizon over plans to launch new 5G wireless service this week, warning that thousands of flights could be grounded or delayed if the rollout takes place near major airports. CEOs of the nation’s largest...

headlinewealth.com

 

[Heliobas Disciple]

Either way, that band is not near 5G cellular frequencies (midband 5G is selected bands in the 2.5GHz to 3.7GHz range, or high band at selected bands in the 25Ghz to 67GHz range). If aircraft radar altimeters are at 4.2-4.4GHz, and midband 5G is between 2.5-3.7GHz, the ONLY way that there would EVER be interference is if one or both of the different systems is WAY out of spec or has some insanely crappy filters on it.

Loup,

Would your suggestion to use filters work if the 5g band is in the 3.7-3.98 GHz range and not 2.5-3.7 GHz range? My understanding from reading about this is that the European countries are using the lower part of the band you are referring to and that's why they haven't had issues but that the USA is using the higher range which is why the airlines are worried about the USA airports. I posted this info on the earlier thread about this problem:

"The United States auctioned mid-range 5G bandwidth to mobile phone companies in early 2021 in the 3.7-3.98 GHz range on the spectrum known as C band, for about $80 billion."

It's a 3 post cut and paste article so I'll link to the post which had that info, but scroll up, the info I posted was actually in the 3rd post of the 3.

CORP/BIZ - Verizon, AT&T Annouce Two-Week Delay In 5G Rollout Aviation Safety Concerns Prompt Eleventh-Hour Pause - January 4, 2022

Verizon and AT&T agreed on January 3 to delay for two additional weeks activation of new 5G C-band wireless transmitters, after initially rejecting calls to do just that from aviation stakeholders and federal regulators concerned about potential interference with critical aviation safety...

www.timebomb2000.com

HD

 

[wvstuck]

Insanity continues. We want a faster cell phone download.

But it will cause problems with airplane landings and could cause flight delays or even deadly crashes.

so what, I want faster downloads on my phone.

Insanity!

 

[thorr]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1483556174859579393

View: https://mobile.twitter.com/tickerNEWSco/status/1483556174859579393?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1483556174859579393%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.godlikeproductions.com%2Fforum1%2Fmessage5017230%2Fpg1

 

[LoupGarou]

Loup,

Would your suggestion to use filters work if the 5g band is in the 3.7-3.98 GHz range and not 2.5-3.7 GHz range? My understanding from reading about this is that the European countries are using the lower part of the band you are referring to and that's why they haven't had issues but that the USA is using the higher range which is why the airlines are worried about the USA airports. I posted this info on the earlier thread about this problem:

"The United States auctioned mid-range 5G bandwidth to mobile phone companies in early 2021 in the 3.7-3.98 GHz range on the spectrum known as C band, for about $80 billion."
...

HD

Yes, they can make a filter to block 2.5-4.00GHz and pass 4.2-4.4GHz that the plane's radar altimeter needs to be able to receive with no problem. I buy notch and bandpass filters quite often, and I would be willing to bet that a 4.2-4.4GHz Bandpass filter already exists and could be put on the plane's radar receiver rather quickly.

Just checked, both RFECHO and Pasternak sell them with a rejection of 4.150GHz and below of greater than -50dB. The RFECHO one handles 10 watts, far more than what is needed for receiver filtering, and could be put on the cellular side transmit if the issue is just the cell towers (THEY BETTER BE "CLEANER" THAN THAT ALREADY!).

 

[LoupGarou]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1483556174859579393

View: https://mobile.twitter.com/tickerNEWSco/status/1483556174859579393?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1483556174859579393%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.godlikeproductions.com%2Fforum1%2Fmessage5017230%2Fpg1

I'm beginning to wonder if this is becoming yet another planned way to block travel of the masses and block shipments even more...

Oh, you can't ship by sea, China closed all of it's ports, and now air traffic is curtailed, so we can't get your supplies to you....

 

[SmithJ]

I'm beginning to wonder if this is becoming yet another planned way to block travel of the masses and block shipments even more...

Oh, you can't ship by sea, China closed all of it's ports, and now air traffic is curtailed, so we can't get your supplies to you....

It has to be. Unless there is another agenda this should be a non issue, especially since they have had a year to plan. This didn’t just occur.

 

[ghost]

US Airline Lobbying Group Warns Of 'Catastrophic Disruptions' Upon 5G Rollout
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) cleared a large portion of the U.S. commercial plane fleet for ultra-low visibility landing at half of the U.S. airports affected by the upcoming rollout of 5G. However, a top airline lobbying group warned the 5G rollout could unleash severe economic consequences for commercial and cargo airlines.

An FAA statement, released Sunday, said Boeing 737, 747, 757, 767, MD-10/-11 and Airbus A310, A319, A320, A321, A330 and A350 models had been approved to perform low-visibility landings (this represents about 45% of America's commercial fleet). The agency also approved two radar altimeter models that will not be disrupted by the 5G band from cellular towers.

The remaining airports will be heavily impacted by 5G frequencies and could cause airlines to delay or cancel flights based on weather. The FAA has requested AT&T and Verizon, which plan to turn on their 5G towers on Dec. 19, to create buffer zones for six months around 50 airports where transmitters are nearby.

The heart of the problem lies in the aircraft's radar altimeter uses frequencies close to C-band. 5G towers also use C-band radio spectrum frequencies that can disrupt altimeters, an important device that measures the aircraft's height above ground.

Airlines for America, a lobbying group, based in Washington, D.C. that represents major North American airlines, such as Delta Airlines, American Airlines, JetBlue, Southwest, United, UPS, FedEx, and Air Canada, voiced their concern Monday about the 5G rollout and how it could have a massive impact on aircraft operations and possibly lead to "economic calamity."

"Unless our major hubs are cleared to fly, the vast majority of the traveling and shipping public will essentially be grounded," the lobbying group said, noting that 1,100 flights and 100,000 passengers could experience delays or cancelations daily.

The lobbying group warned that large swaths of the "operating fleet" are "indefinitely grounded" until the radar altimeter disruption is resolved.

In addition to possible travel chaos, grounding fleets of cargo planes could create a new supply chain issue: the lack of widebody aircraft for shipping goods.

There also appears to be no resolution by the FAA for helicopters. Last week, the Helicopter Association International revealed entire helicopters fleets might be grounded nationwide when 5G towers are switched on.

If the lobbying group is right, flight delays and cancellations could dramatically increase on top of what has been a daily occurrence due to labor shortages and weather. The new twist is how cargo fleets could be grounded and disrupt already stressed supply chains.

US Airline Lobbying Group Warns Of 'Catastrophic Disruptions' Upon 5G Rollout | ZeroHedge

In my opinion, 5G and 6G are only use to kill people, not help.
So, go to their towers and shut them down?

 

[TammyinWI]

It is supposed to launch today, but i could "feel it" and have been suffering for days, off and on. It will not be turned on close to some airports, but everywhere else...sick, sick, sick! And that is what is going to happen to us that make up the masses, short of a miracle. This is a big dot.

In researching this over the last several years, before this launch today, I was mortified. Today I really am. The globalist pigs are on a Nuremburg-style holocaust mission...first to the Jew, and then to the Gentile, is what I have come to mind for some reason.

 

[intothatgoodnight]

Insanity continues. We want a faster cell phone download.

But it will cause problems with airplane landings and could cause flight delays or even deadly crashes.

so what, I want faster downloads on my phone.

Insanity!

So it is MEANT to SEEM . . . - when one thinks about it all, logically.

However, TPTB are counting upon the fact that most will not use logic in analyzing the situation - rather, most will evaluate all of this via their EMOTIONS.

No logic wanted. No logic needed.

See how simple the process of manipulating the masses can be, if you have control of the narrative/MSM?

Obviously, to any thinking individuals - there is more - likely much more - to this whole '5G' affair.

And, (more) logic would suggest there is more to this whole '5G' business hidden behind the emotionalized, "better-faster-cheaper" that is sold to the public - you can BET that there is much more going on, behind the scenes, and beyond the '5G' providers.

Purely about '5G' provider's profiting? That is an element, to be sure. But likely, the '5G' providers are not the ones that are ultimately benefitting - they are merely doing the work of their overlords, who likely have other lesser-known/hidden agendas woven into the wide deployment and use of '5G' by J6P, while making money hand-over-fist.

YMMV.


intothegoodnight

 

[intothatgoodnight]

I'm beginning to wonder if this is becoming yet another planned way to block travel of the masses and block shipments even more...

Oh, you can't ship by sea, China closed all of it's ports, and now air traffic is curtailed, so we can't get your supplies to you....

I am also wondering if installed/deployed '5G' ground gear/routers/transceivers have frequency generation/emitting capabilities outside of "published/license allocated" frequency ranges, that can be remotely determined/controlled by "others." I understand that the transceiver's antenna is real-time steerable, and can be automagically focused at a target receptor/nearby antenna - a beam of RF energy, like a flashlight beam, focused upon the target destination.

As we all should know, '5G' is a marketing term to describe the next generation of high-speed wireless internet connectivity. It is NOT a proper technical descriptive, per se, that correctly identifies the actual frequencies that a '5G' transceiver COULD emit.

Current Verizon, et al, retail consumer grade '5G' apparently lives in the C-Band 4.x+ GHz frequency range. Elon Musk's Starlink '5G' satellite high-speed internet system apparently operates (according to Loup's above previous response) in the 11-12 GHz range.

That is today.

Realize that '5G', while being primarily a marketing term used to sell J6P on an upgraded wireless internet standard, is NOT limited to the above mentioned frequencies, necessarily. There are law of physics arguments that are interwoven into the larger of the '5G' frequency spectrum discussion, but are not pertinent to the larger point that I am making, here - WHAT frequencies COULD could consumer-grade '5G' pole-mounted transceivers/hand-held smart devices employ/emit, disregarding (for the moment) the argument that such gear is licensed by the FCC to specific frequency bands/ranges?

Realize that that the '5G' frequency spectrum runs from the 4.x GHz +/-, all the way up into the millimeter bands - say, 100 GHz and above. HUGE frequency spectrum range possibility, though tightly constrained by the laws of physics and how such frequencies can operate/function - which is WHY it is VERY IMPORTANT to specify the '5G' frequencies under discussion - a VAST range of '5G' frequencies exist - WHICH ones are we going to talk about?

See below info for a 101 orientation of what frequencies could constitute '5G'.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

5G Frequency Bands & Spectrum Allocations - CableFree

5th generation wireless systems, or 5G, may use existing 4G or newly specified 5G Frequency Bands to operate. Technologies include: Millimeter wave bands (26, 28, 38, and 60 GHz) are 5G Massive MIMO, "Low-band 5G" and "Mid-band 5G" use frequencies from 600 MHz to 6 GHz, especially 3.5-4.2 GHz.

www.cablefree.net

5G Frequency bands: Spectrum Allocations for Next-Gen LTE
Introducing 5G Frequency Bands:

5th generation wireless systems, abbreviated 5G, are improved networks deploying in 2018 and later and may use existing 4G or newly specified 5G Frequency Bands to operate. The primary technologies include: Millimeter wave bands (26, 28, 38, and 60 GHz) are 5G and offer performance as high as 20 gigabits per second; Massive MIMO (Multiple Input Multiple Output – 64-256 antennas) offers performance “up to ten times current 4G networks;” “Low-band 5G” and “Mid-band 5G” use frequencies from 600 MHz to 6 GHz, especially 3.5-4.2 GHz.


The 3GPP Release 15 of December, 2017 is the most common definition. Some prefer the more rigorous ITU IMT-2020 definition, which only includes the high-frequency bands for much higher speeds.

Expected 5G Frequency Band Usage: Reproduced courtesy OFCOM

5G Frequency bands and channel bandwidths

From 3GPP TS 38.101-1, the following table lists the specified frequency bands of 5G NR and the channel bandwidths each band supports. Superseded bands are indicated by a grey background.


Frequency Range 1

Band	Duplex mode	ƒ (MHz)	Common name	Subset of band	Uplink (MHz)	Downlink (MHz)	Duplex spacing (MHz)	Channel bandwidths (MHz)
Band	Duplex mode	ƒ (MHz)	Common name	Subset of band	Uplink (MHz)	Downlink (MHz)	Duplex spacing (MHz)	Channel bandwidth (MHz)
n1	FDD	2100	IMT	n65	1920 – 1980	2110 – 2170	190	5, 10, 15, 20
n2	FDD	1900	PCS	n25	1850 – 1910	1930 – 1990	80	5, 10, 15, 20
n3	FDD	1800	DCS		1710 – 1785	1805 – 1880	95	5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30
n5	FDD	850	CLR		824 – 849	869 – 894	45	5, 10, 15, 20
n7	FDD	2600	IMT‑E		2500 – 2570	2620 – 2690	120	5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 40, 50
n8	FDD	900	Extended GSM		880 – 915	925 – 960	45	5, 10, 15, 20
n12	FDD	700	Lower SMH		699 – 716	729 – 746	30	5, 10, 15
n14	FDD	700	Upper SMH		788 – 798	758 – 768	−30	5, 10
n18	FDD	850	Lower 800 (Japan)		815 – 830	860 – 875	45	5, 10, 15
n20	FDD	800	Digital Dividend (EU)		832 – 862	791 – 821	−41	5, 10, 15, 20
n25	FDD	1900	Extended PCS		1850 – 1915	1930 – 1995	80	5, 10, 15, 20
n28	FDD	700	APT		703 – 748	758 – 803	55	5, 10, 15, 20
n29	SDL	700	Lower SMH		N/A	717 – 728	N/A	5, 10
n30	FDD	2300	WCS		2305 – 2315	2350 – 2360	45	5, 10
n34	TDD	2100	IMT		2010 – 2025	N/A	5, 10, 15
n38	TDD	2600	IMT‑E		2570 – 2620	N/A	5, 10, 15, 20
n39	TDD	1900	DCS–IMT Gap		1880 – 1920	N/A	5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 40
n40	TDD	2300	S-Band		2300 – 2400	N/A	5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 40, 50, 60, 80
n41	TDD	2500	BRS	n90	2496 – 2690	N/A	10, 15, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 80, 90, 100
n48	TDD	3500	CBRS (US)		3550 – 3700	N/A	5, 10, 15, 20, 40, 50, 60, 80, 90, 100
n50	TDD	1500	L‑Band		1432 – 1517	N/A	5, 10, 15, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 80
n51	TDD	1500	L‑Band Extension		1427 – 1432	N/A	5
n65	FDD	2100	Extended IMT		1920 – 2010	2110 – 2200	190	5, 10, 15, 20
n66	FDD	1700	Extended AWS		1710 – 1780	2110 – 2200[6]	400	5, 10, 15, 20, 40
n70	FDD	2000	AWS‑4		1695 – 1710	1995 – 2020	300	5, 10, 15, 20, 25
n71	FDD	600	Digital Dividend (US)		663 – 698	617 – 652	−46	5, 10, 15, 20
n74	FDD	1500	Lower L‑Band (Japan)		1427 – 1470	1475 – 1518	48	5, 10, 15, 20
n75	SDL	1500	L‑Band		N/A	1432 – 1517	N/A	5, 10, 15, 20
n76	SDL	1500	Extended L‑Band		N/A	1427 – 1432	N/A	5
n77	TDD	3700	C-Band		3300 – 4200	N/A	10, 15, 20, 40, 50, 60, 80, 90, 100
n78	TDD	3500	C-Band	n77	3300 – 3800	N/A	10, 15, 20, 40, 50, 60, 80, 90, 100
n79	TDD	4700	C-Band		4400 – 5000	N/A	40, 50, 60, 80, 100
n80	SUL	1800	DCS		1710 – 1785	N/A	N/A	5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30
n81	SUL	900	Extended GSM		880 – 915	N/A	N/A	5, 10, 15, 20
n82	SUL	800	Digital Dividend (EU)		832 – 862	N/A	N/A	5, 10, 15, 20
n83	SUL	700	APT		703 – 748	N/A	N/A	5, 10, 15, 20
n84	SUL	2100	IMT		1920 – 1980	N/A	N/A	5, 10, 15, 20
n86	SUL	1700	Extended AWS[A 15]		1710 – 1780	N/A	N/A	5, 10, 15, 20, 40
n89	SUL	850	CLR		824 – 849	N/A	N/A	5, 10, 15, 20
n90	TDD	2500	BRS		2496 – 2690	N/A	10, 15, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 80, 90, 100

1. Supplemental Downlink only

Frequency Range 2

Band	ƒ (GHz)	Common name	Subset of band	Uplink / Downlink (GHz)	Channel bandwidths (MHz)
Band	ƒ (GHz)	Common name	Subset of band	Uplink / Downlink (GHz)	Channel bandwidths (MHz)
n257	28	LMDS		26.50 – 29.50	50, 100, 200, 400
n258	26	K-band		24.25 – 27.50	50, 100, 200, 400
n260	39	Ka-band		37.00 – 40.00	50, 100, 200, 400
n261	28	Ka-band	n257	27.50 – 28.35	50, 100, 200, 400

Other Considerations for 5G Frequency Bands





High 5G Frequency Bands

These bands are usually available and can be quickly cleared for 5G use.

Geographical Area	5G Frequency Band
Europe	3400 – 3800 MHz (awarding trial licenses)
China	3300 – 3600 MHz (ongoing trial)
China	4400 – 4500 MHz
China	4800 – 4990 MHz
Japan	3600 – 4200 MHz
Japan	4400 – 4900 MHz
Korea	3400 – 3700 MHz
USA	3100 – 3550 MHz
USA	3700 – 4200 MHz

Very High 5G Frequency Bands (MMW)






These bands will allow the deployment of hotspots providing very high throughput thanks to the large bandwidth available for operators:

Geographical Area	5G Frequency Band
Europe	24.25 – 27.5 GHz for commercial deployments from 2020
China	Focusing on 24.25 – 27.5 GHz and 37 – 43.5 GHz studies
Japan	27.5 – 28.28 GHz trials planned from 2017 and potentially commercial deployments in 2020
Korea	26.5 – 29.5 GHz trials in 2018 and commercial deployments in 2019
USA	27.5 – 28.35 GHz and 37 – 40 GHz pre-commercial deployments in 2018

Lower 5G Frequency Bands (future considerations)






The bands 600 MHz, 700 MHz, 800 MHz, 900 MHz, 1.5 GHz, 2.1 GHz, 2.3 GHz and 2.6 GHz are considered for traditional coverage applications and new specific usages such as Internet of Things (IoT), Industry Automation, and Business Critical use cases. However “refarming” will be required for most of these bands, hence the time required to have them allocated to 5G will be much longer than the higher bands.

For More Information

For More Information on CableFree products and services, please Contact Us and our team will be delighted to advise on a precise solution to match your exact requirements.

 

[Tiamat214]

Hahahaha. But I thought 5g was like the jabby juice. Safe and effective

 

[Shadow]

All these years and now this problem becomes evident?

Manufactured crisis! Why?

Shadow

 

[Heliobas Disciple]

Yes, they can make a filter to block 2.5-4.00GHz and pass 4.2-4.4GHz that the plane's radar altimeter needs to be able to receive with no problem. I buy notch and bandpass filters quite often, and I would be willing to bet that a 4.2-4.4GHz Bandpass filter already exists and could be put on the plane's radar receiver rather quickly.

Just checked, both RFECHO and Pasternak sell them with a rejection of 4.150GHz and below of greater than -50dB. The RFECHO one handles 10 watts, far more than what is needed for receiver filtering, and could be put on the cellular side transmit if the issue is just the cell towers (THEY BETTER BE "CLEANER" THAN THAT ALREADY!).

Thank you for your response. If it's something so simple, (and I'm not doubting that it is), why hasn't this been done yet? Why is this even an issue if there is a simple fix out there? Is it too expensive to install? Are the people working for both sides not up on what's available out there - ie: still working with 20th century mindset? I'm just not understanding how they waited until the last second to complain and no one tried to do a work around until now.

HD

 

[parsonswife]

Is 5g only in the USA?

 

[parsonswife]

On telegram Amir Tsarfil posted that: "So far today, Air India, ANA, Japan Airlines, and Emirates have cancelled some services to the United States due to concerns the deployment of 5G wireless networks could affect the radio altimeters in the aircraft used on these routes"

 

[LoupGarou]

Thank you for your response. If it's something so simple, (and I'm not doubting that it is), why hasn't this been done yet? Why is this even an issue if there is a simple fix out there? Is it too expensive to install? Are the people working for both sides not up on what's available out there - ie: still working with 20th century mindset? I'm just not understanding how they waited until the last second to complain and no one tried to do a work around until now.

HD

Affter hearing about the Boeing 737 Max issues caused by a SOFTWARE "PAID for upgrade" that was not on all planes due to it being a "PAID for" "upgrade", and causing a few planes to crash, I no longer trust the motives of anything that any manufacturer makes unless they can prove that at least SAFETY is considered first over profits. If you want to charge extra for SOFTWARE that increases some non-mandatory, non-safety-issue related "upgrade" that is one thing, if on the other hand, you already have the second AoA/MCAS sensor ON the plane, you just dont have the software using BOTH sensors to verify that one of the sensors is not BS'ing you, because you want to charge extra for that SOFTWARE "feature" that can help keep people alive, THAT is a disgrace (at best)... So, yes, I can totally see where they would skimp on receiver design and allow a non-filtered WIDE as CRAP spectrum through their receiver's front end that would allow entry for spurious signals from 400-800MHz down the dial. Pisses me off that they think that way, but after seeing NUMEROUS examples of dangerous "follow the bean counters and managers over the engineers, or you are fired" mentality, I'm pretty much done with the whole airline arena.

And I am also betting that the midband 5G cellular is not as RF spectrum "clean" as it should be, given the fact that most of it is SDR based on both the tower and phone end (thus the LTE (Long Term Evolution) description of the cellular system). The designers knew that with LTE, and the ever growing push for "More, Faster, Better", that they would be having to change or add in other frequency bands near what they were already doing. They also know that they may need to change their output signals in both Modulation and Mode methods and that as well can cause more out of frequency band signals to be made in the final stages of the transmitter's final amplification. They also knew that once WiMAX was bought by Sprint, and then basically not used, AND that other frequency bands in the neighborhood were coming up for auction (that pesky "make money any which way you can" thing again...), that the towers and the phones would need to be able to use those frequencies. With a SDR based system on both ends, that is not only ALL entirely possible, but also ALL rather easy, just "change the software". The issue is that while you can TECHNICALLY make filters in software, they REALLY DON'T WORK ON THE TRANSMITTING END IN REAL WORLD PHYSICS, spurious signals, harmonics, and just overall "out of band" CRAP SPEWING is GOING to happen with an unfiltered SDR transmitter. I have plenty of SDRs that can work in that range, some which are lab grade and QUITE expensive. Some can go up well into the upper 30GHz range and transmit with a fairly decent wattage (I have a few that will handle past 80GHz but at a lot less wattage). NONE OF THEM have any actual INTERNAL hardware based filtering or filter networks on their output and ANY attempts at transmitting without adding those filters ends up blowing away a GOOD sized chunk of the spectrum around what I was trying to transmit in. So I have a PILE of different filters and tunable cavities that I can add in to keep my RF outbound goodness "cleaner". While physical, hardware based filters are not really expensive, they evidently cost more than what either the cellular industry or the airline industry wants to pay for the "upgrades" to their designs that they should have made standard in the first place. When you are given a frequency BAND to play in, you are supposed to stay inside those lines. Evidently, someone is painting by number with an airbrush from 5 feet away and no masking of any areas on the page...

I'm not really surprised or shocked...

 

[TammyinWI]

Is 5g only in the USA?

I don't think so. It was turned on first in the city where COVID originated from, and at that time, in China.

 

[Night Breeze]

Sure would hate to be the pilot trying to explain a hard landing in a 30 million dollar jet when my radar altimeter indicated 300 feet above ground level (AGL) when I was at 30 feet. The error signal indicates that aircraft could land short or long on a runway under Instrument Flight no visual sight landings. Helicopters could have altimeters and dopplers show weird data. Just saying better safe than sorry.

 

[willowlady]

Thank you for your response. If it's something so simple, (and I'm not doubting that it is), why hasn't this been done yet? Why is this even an issue if there is a simple fix out there? Is it too expensive to install? Are the people working for both sides not up on what's available out there - ie: still working with 20th century mindset? I'm just not understanding how they waited until the last second to complain and no one tried to do a work around until now.

HD

$$$$$

 

[willowlady]

Since the onset of Covid, I haven't flown anywhere. We decided to drive where we wanted to go. It takes longer and is more taxing, but for under 1,000 it's way cheaper. Plus, we haven't been jabbed nor do we intend to be, so we don't have to put up with all that "papers please" BS. In addition, it's likely there will suddenly be more air traffic "accidents", so flying will be little safer than driving. As far as the larger ramifications, the US, indeed the entire world, is looking at a reduction to 3rd world living in the near future.

 

[LoupGarou]

Sure would hate to be the pilot trying to explain a hard landing in a 30 million dollar jet when my radar altimeter indicated 300 feet above ground level (AGL) when I was at 30 feet. The error signal indicates that aircraft could land short or long on a runway under Instrument Flight no visual sight landings. Helicopters could have altimeters and dopplers show weird data. Just saying better safe than sorry.

Fully agree, but the issue really is, where is the RF coming from that is in the wrong place at the wrong time. Even if we are talking about the US's version of Mid band Cellular 5G signals, we are talking about 3.7-3.98 GHz (which is equal to 3700-3980MHz). And if the airplanes are working in the 4.2-4.4GHz range (which is equal to 4200-4400MHz), then we are talking about a just over 200MHz GAP between the top of the cellular band window, and the bottom of the airplane's radar altimeter window. 200MHz is a LOT of buffer between the two bands to be worried about an overlap IF both systems are "playing by the rules" and staying inside of their bands and bandwidth. I'm betting that at least one of the two systems is in actuality nowhere near the RF spectral purity that it really needs to be and probably nowhere near what the FCC thinks that it was tested at.

To give you an idea of how big 200MHz is, the whole AM radio broadcast band is a little over 1MHz wide. The FM band is about 20 MHz wide. And the whole shortwave band is less than 30MHz wide. In fact, 0Hz to 200MHz has not only all of the above three broadcast bands within it, but 11 TV channels, all of the low and mid band VHF public service and business bands, all of the mid band VHF and below Military bands, and a lot of other wild communications inside that first 200MHz of spectrum. It's a LOT of RF real estate. There should be VERY little of the cellular signal from 3700-3980MHz getting into the 4200-4400MHz radar altimeter range. My only thought is that they built the radar altimeter's receiver decades ago when the only thing in the C-Band was old satellite TV signals and they were coming from ABOVE the plane, and not "illuminating" the underside of the plane, so they didn't worry about the receiver not being selective enough on it's inbound signals to have to deal with the microscopic ground reflection of the C-Band Satellite TV signals. Now that we have active, ground based transmitters in the cell towers, they are now freaking out because they know that while their radar may be working and transmitting in the 4200-4400MHz range, the poorly designed receiver section is so wideband open that it sees at least part of the 3700-3980 range as part of a valid signal to be received. Poor receiver design and trying to skimp on having the right filtering to save a few $$ per plane is something that I could see them doing, but it's NOT something to blame the cellular industry on if they are keeping in their range, it's poor design and implementation on the aircraft industry's part. Stop pointing fingers where they shouldn't be pointed, and get a freakin' filter shoved in the receive line and be done with it.

Likewise, if it is the cellular transmit side that is the problem, and it is not really passing the FCC limits to keep in their bands because they are using SDR transmitters and don't have any output filtering to keep it in check, then THEY need to apply the fixes at all the towers...

 

[Heliobas Disciple]

Affter hearing about the Boeing 737 Max issues caused by a SOFTWARE "PAID for upgrade" that was not on all planes due to it being a "PAID for" "upgrade", and causing a few planes to crash, I no longer trust the motives of anything that any manufacturer makes unless they can prove that at least SAFETY is considered first over profits. If you want to charge extra for SOFTWARE that increases some non-mandatory, non-safety-issue related "upgrade" that is one thing, if on the other hand, you already have the second AoA/MCAS sensor ON the plane, you just dont have the software using BOTH sensors to verify that one of the sensors is not BS'ing you, because you want to charge extra for that SOFTWARE "feature" that can help keep people alive, THAT is a disgrace (at best)... So, yes, I can totally see where they would skimp on receiver design and allow a non-filtered WIDE as CRAP spectrum through their receiver's front end that would allow entry for spurious signals from 400-800MHz down the dial. Pisses me off that they think that way, but after seeing NUMEROUS examples of dangerous "follow the bean counters and managers over the engineers, or you are fired" mentality, I'm pretty much done with the whole airline arena.

And I am also betting that the midband 5G cellular is not as RF spectrum "clean" as it should be, given the fact that most of it is SDR based on both the tower and phone end (thus the LTE (Long Term Evolution) description of the cellular system). The designers knew that with LTE, and the ever growing push for "More, Faster, Better", that they would be having to change or add in other frequency bands near what they were already doing. They also know that they may need to change their output signals in both Modulation and Mode methods and that as well can cause more out of frequency band signals to be made in the final stages of the transmitter's final amplification. They also knew that once WiMAX was bought by Sprint, and then basically not used, AND that other frequency bands in the neighborhood were coming up for auction (that pesky "make money any which way you can" thing again...), that the towers and the phones would need to be able to use those frequencies. With a SDR based system on both ends, that is not only ALL entirely possible, but also ALL rather easy, just "change the software". The issue is that while you can TECHNICALLY make filters in software, they REALLY DON'T WORK ON THE TRANSMITTING END IN REAL WORLD PHYSICS, spurious signals, harmonics, and just overall "out of band" CRAP SPEWING is GOING to happen with an unfiltered SDR transmitter. I have plenty of SDRs that can work in that range, some which are lab grade and QUITE expensive. Some can go up well into the upper 30GHz range and transmit with a fairly decent wattage (I have a few that will handle past 80GHz but at a lot less wattage). NONE OF THEM have any actual INTERNAL hardware based filtering or filter networks on their output and ANY attempts at transmitting without adding those filters ends up blowing away a GOOD sized chunk of the spectrum around what I was trying to transmit in. So I have a PILE of different filters and tunable cavities that I can add in to keep my RF outbound goodness "cleaner". While physical, hardware based filters are not really expensive, they evidently cost more than what either the cellular industry or the airline industry wants to pay for the "upgrades" to their designs that they should have made standard in the first place. When you are given a frequency BAND to play in, you are supposed to stay inside those lines. Evidently, someone is painting by number with an airbrush from 5 feet away and no masking of any areas on the page...

I'm not really surprised or shocked...

Thank you for the explanation. I wonder how much money we're actually talking about here. And with all the money the government's been handing out the last two years why they didn't give the airlines some sort of stimulus money they could have used to pay for these filters if they wouldn't do it on their own dime. I really am starting to suspect there are lot of people working 'tech' jobs who are not up on the new 'tech' and are sitting around using their old floppy discs trying to figure out what to do next.

HD

 

[Knoxville's Joker]

Fully agree, but the issue really is, where is the RF coming from that is in the wrong place at the wrong time. Even if we are talking about the US's version of Mid band Cellular 5G signals, we are talking about 3.7-3.98 GHz (which is equal to 3700-3980MHz). And if the airplanes are working in the 4.2-4.4GHz range (which is equal to 4200-4400MHz), then we are talking about a just over 200MHz GAP between the top of the cellular band window, and the bottom of the airplane's radar altimeter window. 200MHz is a LOT of buffer between the two bands to be worried about an overlap IF both systems are "playing by the rules" and staying inside of their bands and bandwidth. I'm betting that at least one of the two systems is in actuality nowhere near the RF spectral purity that it really needs to be and probably nowhere near what the FCC thinks that it was tested at.

To give you an idea of how big 200MHz is, the whole AM radio broadcast band is a little over 1MHz wide. The FM band is about 20 MHz wide. And the whole shortwave band is less than 30MHz wide. In fact, 0Hz to 200MHz has not only all of the above three broadcast bands within it, but 11 TV channels, all of the low and mid band VHF public service and business bands, all of the mid band VHF and below Military bands, and a lot of other wild communications inside that first 200MHz of spectrum. It's a LOT of RF real estate. There should be VERY little of the cellular signal from 3700-3980MHz getting into the 4200-4400MHz radar altimeter range. My only thought is that they built the radar altimeter's receiver decades ago when the only thing in the C-Band was old satellite TV signals and they were coming from ABOVE the plane, and not "illuminating" the underside of the plane, so they didn't worry about the receiver not being selective enough on it's inbound signals to have to deal with the microscopic ground reflection of the C-Band Satellite TV signals. Now that we have active, ground based transmitters in the cell towers, they are now freaking out because they know that while their radar may be working and transmitting in the 4200-4400MHz range, the poorly designed receiver section is so wideband open that it sees at least part of the 3700-3980 range as part of a valid signal to be received. Poor receiver design and trying to skimp on having the right filtering to save a few $$ per plane is something that I could see them doing, but it's NOT something to blame the cellular industry on if they are keeping in their range, it's poor design and implementation on the aircraft industry's part. Stop pointing fingers where they shouldn't be pointed, and get a freakin' filter shoved in the receive line and be done with it.

Likewise, if it is the cellular transmit side that is the problem, and it is not really passing the FCC limits to keep in their bands because they are using SDR transmitters and don't have any output filtering to keep it in check, then THEY need to apply the fixes at all the towers...

So what you are saying is that someone has crappy equipment that is operating outside of their licensed FCC frequency allocation?

And this begs the question that the 5G stuff is operating well out of band for what they are supposed to be operating out of. Is this not a big finable event by the FCC?

 

[TammyinWI]

Since the onset of Covid, I haven't flown anywhere. We decided to drive where we wanted to go. It takes longer and is more taxing, but for under 1,000 it's way cheaper. Plus, we haven't been jabbed nor do we intend to be, so we don't have to put up with all that "papers please" BS. In addition, it's likely there will suddenly be more air traffic "accidents", so flying will be little safer than driving. As far as the larger ramifications, the US, indeed the entire world, is looking at a reduction to 3rd world living in the near future.

For me, it was the onset of TSA and those pat-downs and x-ray machines. No thanks. My last flight was RT, Chicago. The doofuses "confiscated" my unopened little grape juice. When I go to Florida again, I will drive.

 

[TammyinWI]

I have not felt it "on" today, until a little while ago, it creeped in, then I prayed! I do, immediately, when i get hit!

 

[bw]

I'm betting that at least one of the two systems is in actuality nowhere near the RF spectral purity that it really needs to be and probably nowhere near what the FCC thinks that it was tested at.

Agree.

 

[LoupGarou]

So what you are saying is that someone has crappy equipment that is operating outside of their licensed FCC frequency allocation?

And this begs the question that the 5G stuff is operating well out of band for what they are supposed to be operating out of. Is this not a big finable event by the FCC?

It could be that the cellular systems, being SDR based and rather frequency agile, are transmitting with harmonics or spurious signals out of their band. If it is, then that could be a few FCC fines. Or it could be that the radar systems were designed and built decades before the idea of a lot of other C-Band signals being used from the ground out and up (in the direction of the planes undersides, where the radar is trying to pick up the return signal from the ground), and since they were designed and built much earlier, they never had the receive filtering to keep out signals on adjacent bands. For all I know, the radar could be able to receive anything from 3GHz to 7GHz or so, which would put a LOT of ground signals into it's receiver that it would have to deal with. IF that is the case, then nobody is breaking the FCC rules, just bad engineering practices.

I'm planning on taking a trip into Richmond sometime next week with some toys of mine and see if I can spot a few of the different bands in action. Richmond International Airport (BYRD AIRPORT) was not on the earlier list, so if we have any mid band 5G cellular, then it could be hot now, and easily detectable to see if it is coloring within the lines. My bet is that it is. I'm leaning towards the notion that the planes are rather wide band receive on their radar systems and that the 200MHz wide border is not really wide enough to keep the "noise" of the other signals out of the return signal that it is trying to listen for.

If this is the case, and it's the airplanes radar receivers that are the weak link, it makes me worry more than just a wee bit about someone causing issues with that info. I'm not going to post any details, but... Yeah that could be scary and hard to prove as the cause.

I'm starting to wonder how many other systems are not filtered for "unacceptable input" on any of their inputs or sensors (thinking back to the 747Max that had the second sensor that it could have used for an error check, but the software was a paid upgrade)... Also thinking about the Toyota "Unintended Acceleration" issues that happened a decade or so ago that were found to be tin dentrites (whiskers from lead free solder usage) that cause the Throttle Position Sensor potentiometer to "short" out and make the ECM think the owner was flooring the car. A simple second potentiometer would have let the ECM see that one signal did not look like the other and have the system go into a limp home mode or something similar. But for the lack of a $2 extra part, and $5 of wiring (and an extra input pin on the ECM), you had a few collisions, injuries, and a lot of really freaked out people. Or if they wanted to go cheaper, just a simple switch that when the gas pedal was at rest, it would cut out VCC on the potentiometer so that it would guaranteed read "go to idle" setting even if the potentiometer shorted out.

 

[Knoxville's Joker]

It could be that the cellular systems, being SDR based and rather frequency agile, are transmitting with harmonics or spurious signals out of their band. If it is, then that could be a few FCC fines. Or it could be that the radar systems were designed and built decades before the idea of a lot of other C-Band signals being used from the ground out and up (in the direction of the planes undersides, where the radar is trying to pick up the return signal from the ground), and since they were designed and built much earlier, they never had the receive filtering to keep out signals on adjacent bands. For all I know, the radar could be able to receive anything from 3GHz to 7GHz or so, which would put a LOT of ground signals into it's receiver that it would have to deal with. IF that is the case, then nobody is breaking the FCC rules, just bad engineering practices.

I'm planning on taking a trip into Richmond sometime next week with some toys of mine and see if I can spot a few of the different bands in action. Richmond International Airport (BYRD AIRPORT) was not on the earlier list, so if we have any mid band 5G cellular, then it could be hot now, and easily detectable to see if it is coloring within the lines. My bet is that it is. I'm leaning towards the notion that the planes are rather wide band receive on their radar systems and that the 200MHz wide border is not really wide enough to keep the "noise" of the other signals out of the return signal that it is trying to listen for.

If this is the case, and it's the airplanes radar receivers that are the weak link, it makes me worry more than just a wee bit about someone causing issues with that info. I'm not going to post any details, but... Yeah that could be scary and hard to prove as the cause.

I'm starting to wonder how many other systems are not filtered for "unacceptable input" on any of their inputs or sensors (thinking back to the 747Max that had the second sensor that it could have used for an error check, but the software was a paid upgrade)... Also thinking about the Toyota "Unintended Acceleration" issues that happened a decade or so ago that were found to be tin dentrites (whiskers from lead free solder usage) that cause the Throttle Position Sensor potentiometer to "short" out and make the ECM think the owner was flooring the car. A simple second potentiometer would have let the ECM see that one signal did not look like the other and have the system go into a limp home mode or something similar. But for the lack of a $2 extra part, and $5 of wiring (and an extra input pin on the ECM), you had a few collisions, injuries, and a lot of really freaked out people. Or if they wanted to go cheaper, just a simple switch that when the gas pedal was at rest, it would cut out VCC on the potentiometer so that it would guaranteed read "go to idle" setting even if the potentiometer shorted out.

So basically stuff that was put in place before the FCC was a thing and basically the equipment is grandfathered in place and because of this the finger pointing game will start and it will be the consumers who lose out, or there could be cellular towers that end up getting fried from radar sweeps and not much to be done about it. And the same could happen to the radar installations in a different form, they become non functional because they have no way to filter out the 5g signal and basically get a garbage screen of input...